• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Voyagers: Not Fit For Purpose... Or Just on the Wrong Routes?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Potentially. Plus some damping on the engine rafts/mounts and transfer to services i don't have to use ;)

Funny you mention that - I find that once they get going the engines aren't disruptive at all, it's more of a low rumble not hugely different from track noise on older, poorly insulated LHCS like Mk2s. If you want noisy engines, try Class 158 whine or Class 150/156 roar, or indeed Pacer unhealthy wheezing.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,383
Personal experience:

Birmingham - Plymouth (and return!) longest journey
Crewe - Euston (and return) most frequent journey

Issues:

Capacity - but longer trains would mean higher costs
Cramped - but fewer seats would worsen capacity issues
Smelly - not noticeable on Virgin sets; XC need to get it sorted
Noise/ vibrations - I really don't notice this. Well, I notice an engine noise but certainly not intrusive
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
Funny you mention that - I find that once they get going the engines aren't disruptive at all, it's more of a low rumble not hugely different from track noise on older, poorly insulated LHCS like Mk2s. If you want noisy engines, try Class 158 whine or Class 150/156 roar, or indeed Pacer unhealthy wheezing.

I find them grating at all times and coupled with the vibration I find the whole experience wearing in the extreme. Whereas an XC HST always seems a pleasant environment in which to travel.

What I want is a train offering all the mechanical and technological improvement and reliability associated with the modern world AND passenger comfort at least as good as that offered by a 40 year old train.

We should be able to do that shouldn't we?
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,284
One of the problems with the current franchise is that they are stuck with having to use Voyagers and at the start of the franchise it wasn't "making a profit" for the DfT.

By the time the next franchise starts neither of these will be a problem and so things should be able improve considerably. The problem is the next franchise starts just before the DDA rules kick in and so using HST's in the franchise extension could be a problem unless money is spent on them or it is known about ICWC's 221's (see below).

There may be some 221's being released by ICWC, but we will not know that until about the same time as the ITT is published. As such, depending on when their replacements are available, they may or may not be helpful for being replacements for HST's. There is also the possibility that ICWC keep quite a number to improved services (like through North Wales) which are not going to be under the wires, even though they are replaced on services which do run under the wires the whole way.

There are very limited routes that could be run by EMU (the only one I can think of is to split Manchester to South Coast to run Manchester to Rugby as EMU and Birmingham International to South Coast by Voyagers, but that's not going to free up many units).

That basically looks like an order for bi-modal units would be sensible (given that some services (i.e. Newcastle/Scotland to Reading) would involve quite a lot of under wire running.

The problem (at least for Voyager Leasing) is once such an order is needed that it means that there would need to be a sizable order of coaches to make it justifiable (120 coaches?) which if they are being run as 7 coach units (to allow for extra capacity) is 17 units. Given that Newcastle to Reading only would need something like 11 units plus a few extra for extensions to that route that then means that there would be 2 or 3 which would need to be used elsewhere.

As a passenger that is not too much of a problem, however it continues to erode the viability of keeping the 220's (it certainly does away with the need for the 4 coach 221 that they have) at XC as the 7 coach bimodal units would likely have broadly the same capacity as a pair of 220's (depending on coach length potentially more), meaning that for each one could replace up to two of the 220's. Given that bimodal order could remove the need for pairs of 220's to be ever run that could reduce the total number of units that XC needs to run their services.

That then could leave XC with a starting point of:
17*7 coach bimodal (minimum order)
22*5 coach 221's

Which is 39 units out of a current fleet of 57 Voyagers, meaning to match the total number of existing units they would need 18 units, lets say that they know that they can have 8 of 20 ICWC 221's that leads to the question do they opt for up to 10 of the 220's or do they opt for up to 10 extra bimodals (which may reduce their cost per unit as the order is larger) and leave Voyager Leasing with all 34 of the 220's to try and find a home for (which could be easier than trying t find homes for a fleet of 24 units)?

The reason it is upto 10 is that there would be less need for running units in pairs, as such it could mean that XC don't need to have the same total number of units as they currently have Voyagers
 

QueensCurve

Established Member
Joined
22 Dec 2014
Messages
1,904
I've seen a lot of people who aren't too keen on the Voyagers. Aside from them being quite a nice looking design on the outside, it seems that these trains just aren't very well received by passengers. Some complaints include...

  • They're very small for the routes they serve which can lead to overcrowding, especially Aberdeen to Penzance.
  • They have a few toilet problems with smell that spreads throughout the train and maybe cause vomiting (they are nicknamed "Vomiters" sometimes)
  • They, being Diesel Electric Multiple Units, are noisy and cause uncomfortable vibrations for passengers when they engines are right under the carriage floors.
  • Maybe the care taken by CrossCountry and Bombardier could be less than it is, though I don't travel on XC Voyagers so I can't judge really.

Considering the stock that they replaced had about eight to ten coaches per train in contrast to the smaller four and five carriage Voyagers, along with being more comfortable in comparison if you go by some passenger surveys, it makes me beg the question on if the Voyagers are really fit for purpose... or if maybe they're just on the wrong routes. Think about it, maybe some of the technical issues may be more bearable if you only had to put up with them on shorter journeys rather than maybe being crazy enough to ride the trip from Aberdeen to Penzance.

What do you think? Are the Voyagers fit for purpose, or are they actually just on the wrong kind of routes? If you think the latter maybe give me some routes they might be best suited for. Take note that I have never ridden on CrossCountry. Thanks.

Some don't seem to mind the noise and vibration. I think it is dreadful.

In the days of BR there was [rightly] a perception that "underfloor engines are not an Inter City product" but that of course was old railway.

My first encounter with the Voyager was pleasant surprise that new fast inter city trains were being introduced quickly tempered by the unpleasantness of the noisy ride.

The original intention for IEP was that underfloor engines would not be suitable. As the project got underway, Hitachi have not only designed with underfloor Diesel Generators but have further degraded the environment by using a higher floor in the coaches that have them.

We can but hope that further electrification will eventually obviate the need for underfloor diesels. It seems likely that gap in the wires on cross country routes will remain for the foreseeable future.

I have never personally noted any problem with smells or nausea on the Voyagers, but they remain dreadful.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
You'd think so. It's called the ICE. :)

But then Germany always took a different approach to us.

That has the benefit of electric traction, continued lack of which in the UK is the real problem.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
That has the benefit of electric traction, continued lack of which in the UK is the real problem.

It does, but there's no particular reason you couldn't build a DMU or indeed LHCS of that quality (not that it's perfect, window alignment isn't right for one). Other than money of course.

The original ICEs were basically LHCS, and there are the two Metropolitan sets which run as and look like ICEs but are actually LHCS.
 

QueensCurve

Established Member
Joined
22 Dec 2014
Messages
1,904
OThat basically looks like an order for bi-modal units would be sensible (given that some services (i.e. Newcastle/Scotland to Reading) would involve quite a lot of under wire running.

It may be heresy, but dare I challenge the current orthodoxy that trains running beyond the wires must be either bi-mode or diesel powered under the wires.

This has its roots in 2 factors:-


  • British rail's belated recognition that, with the technology of the time, locomotive changes imposed a large manpower cost.
  • The view within the D[aft]FT that locomotive attachment/detachment could not be guaranteed to take less than 9 minutes.
Neither of these need be true. Modern multiple units are coupled and uncoupled in stations requiring no more manpower than the train crew where these are portion worked.

With modern technology applied to locomotive couplings it should be possible for a train to approach a waiting locomotive under permissive block and the coupling to be achieved quickly.
 
Last edited:

Steve14

Member
Joined
25 Apr 2015
Messages
145
I think they would have been better used by the new (current) ScotRail franchise instead of short HSTs. Put the ex-GWR HSTs back on CrossCountry where the capacity is needed, in full 7 or 8 coach formations, and use the Voyager's few good points to maximum benefit in Scotland, i.e. superior acceleration and braking (plenty of power over the hills and quicker getaways from the higher number of station stops) and power doors. And those big windows of course.

IIRC it is intended to fit power doors to the HSTs for ScotRail, but obviously with the Voyagers already having them it's a further benefit.

Not a bad shout mind you. Practically validates the main point - quicker acceleration on the scots lines which they can do, have them running in a 5 car formation, they wouldn't look bad at all in the scotsrail livery either :)

Use some HSTs from GWR for the long distance routes from Scotland to Devon/Cornwall and the services in and out of Reading and 225s from Birmingham to Scotland over electrified lines, however use a 67 as a DVT/loco to go over non electrified routes
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,837
.....At the risk of adding something new to a "Voyagers aren't very good" thread, I wonder why so many enthusiasts accept the 1/3 2/3 door positions on TPE (due to the large number of people doing city-to-city journeys) but any discussion of XC stock replacement always requires end doors?....

It's generally accepted that Intercity trains, for long distances, should have quieter enviroments and ends doors do tend to provide that. XC is more of an Intercity operator than TPE. Let's not forget that Manchester-Scotland was an XC operation before politicians started meddling with it. Most people (which seems to exclude everyone in the DfT) still consider TPE to be a "Regional Express" operator, rather than Intercity.

.....Is it nosier than a 222? Because I don't see the same complaints about their underfloor engines....

Honestly don't know about engine noise, but I'd rather sit on a Voyager for four hours than a Meridian for two!

.....Which stock has been introduced over the past thirty years where seats fully line up with windows?....

Class 185s?

Don't think any of the six coach sides are the same!..... Though to be fair I'd rather spend two hours on a Meridian than one hour on a 185!
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I'm sure that's in part due to the more generous loading gauge that German railways have.

The width is, but that's no reason not to select higher quality materials and provide more legroom.

In any case it's not *much* wider, maybe 10-12cm, and most of it goes on a wider aisle.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,284
It may be heresy, but dare I challenge the current orthodoxy that trains running beyond the wires must be either bi-mode or diesel powered under the wires.

This has its roots in 2 factors:-


  • British rail's belated recognition that, with the technology of the time, locomotive changes imposed a large manpower cost.
  • The view within the D[aft]FT that locomotive attachment/detachment could not be guaranteed to take less than 9 minutes.
Neither of these need be true. Modern multiple units are coupled and uncoupled in stations requiring no more manpower than the train crew where these are portion worked.

With modern technology applied to locomotive couplings it should be possible for a train to approach a waiting locomotive under permissive block and the coupling to be achieved quickly.

It should also be noted that Loco hauling of some XC services (i.e. Manchester to South Coast) may:

a) need a loco to run Coventry/Oxford and south of Reading/Basingstoke before the end of this franchise (assuming the extension happens).

b) need a loco change at Basingstoke by the mid 2020's

To overcome this it is likely that:

a) loco change would happen at Coventry only OR bimodal units are used

b) bimodal units are used due to the short time the locos would be needed to run Coventry to Basingstoke

If you look at where unit splitting happens on route it tends (in the case of SWT) to be places like Guildford and Salisbury where there are options to divert units around if there is a problem and they are fairly major stations and so are well staffed. However they are not critical junctions (i.e. not Woking).
 

Emblematic

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2013
Messages
659
Not a bad shout mind you. Practically validates the main point - quicker acceleration on the scots lines which they can do, have them running in a 5 car formation, they wouldn't look bad at all in the scotsrail livery either :)

Ah, but the Scots are far too canny to have Voyagers foisted upon them:

ScotRail Franchise Invitation to Tender
...
Service Type Inter-city
Central Belt – Perth/Stirling/Dundee/Aberdeen and Inverness
Aberdeen – Inverness
Rolling stock minimum attributes
...
Shoulder room and leg room should not be reduced from that currently provided on each route
...
Toilet provision on board which is no less than currently provided on each route and that avoids smell being noticeable in seated areas
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,094
Location
Reading
The width is, but that's no reason not to select higher quality materials and provide more legroom.

In any case it's not *much* wider, maybe 10-12cm, and most of it goes on a wider aisle.

From an article by Gordon Hafter in the April 1992 issue of Modern Railways, p197:

...the way that the UIC gauges are defined creates a far greater reduction in permissible width with increasing length, than is initially the case with the BR gauge. Thus while the short-wheelbase four-wheeler goods wagon of yesteryear would be a good foot wider on the mainland than here, the standard 26m-long UIC passenger coach has to be no more than 2,825mm wide. For the imperially minded that is 9ft 3.5in, which is (surprise) exactly the same overall width over door handles on a BR Mk 1 coach.

So the standard go-everywhere UIC coach is not much wider at all! However, some German and Austrian stock (possibly also Swiss) is a bit wider and the reduced number of networks they can use can be seen on the Railway Administration matrix near the solebar.
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,004
With modern technology applied to locomotive couplings it should be possible for a train to approach a waiting locomotive under permissive block and the coupling to be achieved quickly.

It should be, but nobody has yet perfected it. The killer isn't the physical coupling, which can be automatic and no different to a MU attaching/detaching, but the ETS supply.

SNCF had a dalliance with an auto coupler with 1500V ETS cabling and it wasn't reliable.

That moves back to providing somewhere that shunting staff can safely move around at track level, which then complicated track layout and signalling, which destroys capacity long before we take into account a locomotive sitting in a platform for the incoming EMU to be attached.

Stuart Baker from DfT timed the Pendolino coupling himself on occasion, 9 minutes was recorded at least once, it certainly wasn't typical, so should a typical scenario or worst case scenario have been considered when deciding whether to drag EMU stock or build bi-mode. Who knows ?
 

47271

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2015
Messages
2,983
Ah, but the Scots are far too canny to have Voyagers foisted upon them:

ScotRail Franchise Invitation to Tender
...
Service Type Inter-city
Central Belt – Perth/Stirling/Dundee/Aberdeen and Inverness
Aberdeen – Inverness
Rolling stock minimum attributes
...
Shoulder room and leg room should not be reduced from that currently provided on each route
...
Toilet provision on board which is no less than currently provided on each route and that avoids smell being noticeable in seated areas
I hadn't come across that before, it's very funny. It may as well say 'no trains originally ordered by Virgin and built in Belgium since 2000'. :)

Personally I'd sooner that Scotrail continued with Turbostars on long distance routes than use Voyagers. The pong is bad enough but it's the high frequency vibration that makes me queasy in the same way as I get in small planes like the Britten Norman Islander. The only other train type I get the same buzz off is the equally nasty 180. 185s I'm absolutely fine with.

Let's hope the 800s don't induce the same effect north of Edinburgh...
 

Emblematic

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2013
Messages
659
So the standard go-everywhere UIC coach is not much wider at all! However, some German and Austrian stock (possibly also Swiss) is a bit wider and the reduced number of networks they can use can be seen on the Railway Administration matrix near the solebar.
It doesn't help though, that we have taper profiles on stock that no longer tilts. Or stock that never has and never will tilt! :roll:
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Shoulder room and leg room should not be reduced from that currently provided on each route

Class 170s have sloped-in sides with almost a tilt profile, and you could always reseat Voyagers. The bog smell might be harder to lose, though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
So the standard go-everywhere UIC coach is not much wider at all! However, some German and Austrian stock (possibly also Swiss) is a bit wider and the reduced number of networks they can use can be seen on the Railway Administration matrix near the solebar.

ICEs, which were under discussion, are mostly 2.9something metres wide, though some of them are narrower to allow running in other countries I think.

The UIC standard 26m coach is indeed only half a centimetre wider than a Mk3-based 20m coach, which is 2.82m wide.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It doesn't help though, that we have taper profiles on stock that no longer tilts. Or stock that never has and never will tilt! :roll:

One of the nice features of Desiros is that there is almost no taper. That said, the new Desiro body is tapered but isn't unpleasant.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The only other train type I get the same buzz off is the equally nasty 180.

The 180 is nasty to me as well, but that's mainly because of the utterly awful ride. I'd genuinely rather a Pacer; they don't make me feel sick.

The interior is also built of cheap and nasty materials.
 
Last edited:

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,004
One of the nice features of Desiros is that there is almost no taper. That said, the new Desiro body is tapered but isn't unpleasant.

Siemens have returned to as near a square box as possible for the Desiro City (ThamesLink+SWT) units - totally different body profile to the 23m Class 380 units, must be very close to the shape of the original Desiro family, which is, in turn, very close to the shape of the BREL Mark 3 EMU family.
 

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,492
They could have done with being about 8 or 9 coaches long, with perhaps the same amount as now of 1st class, maybe an extra wheelchair space and the rest of the extra coaches being standard class with no quiet zone. Would an 8 or 9 coach Voyager (if one ver happened) need all it's engines running to be able to keep to schedule?
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,284
Would the cancelled "eVoyager" project have improved capacity?

Yes as it would have added a load of extra coaches.

One of the problems with it was the need (IIRC) for 2 pantograph coaches for any unit longer then 5 coaches. As such I think that we would have seen:

34x5 coach 220's with XC
36x5 coach 221's (including use of the stored end coaches)
8x9 coach 221's (probably mostly with ICWC but a few could have gone to XC)

That would have required 86 pantograph coaches.

If it were possible to run 12 coach trains on the routes which see pairs of 221's on ICWC we could have seen them with an extra pantograph coach added to each unit to make the total 106 pantograph coaches.

However all of that would have been less than most minimum orders, so unless the 222's were also included and/or more units were going to be ordered the cost per coach would have been fairly high.
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,004
Yes as it would have added a load of extra coaches.

One of the problems with it was the need (IIRC) for 2 pantograph coaches for any unit longer then 5 coaches. As such I think that we would have seen:

34x5 coach 220's with XC
36x5 coach 221's (including use of the stored end coaches)
8x9 coach 221's (probably mostly with ICWC but a few could have gone to XC)

That would have required 86 pantograph coaches.

If it were possible to run 12 coach trains on the routes which see pairs of 221's on ICWC we could have seen them with an extra pantograph coach added to each unit to make the total 106 pantograph coaches.

However all of that would have been less than most minimum orders, so unless the 222's were also included and/or more units were going to be ordered the cost per coach would have been fairly high.

eVoyager was a victim of so many things, but cost didn't have to really be one of them.

Bombardier basically didn't want to do the eVoyager project, they didn't want to get involved with more Voyager and Meridian units, period, which is why they destroyed the jigs needed to produce some new coaches.

Bombardier are hellishly good about whining when they don't win orders they think they're entitled to, but they're pretty crap at tendering and ignore things they don't see enough profit in (hence not tendering for the Northern DMU order then complaining when Northern refused to buy EMUs from Bombardier).

I believe, when Bombardier merged their rail operations with DaimlerChrysler Rail (AdTranz, as was) they dramatically rationalised their product lines and with the Voyager/Meridian product line being based around Alstom electrical components (it uses Alstom Onyx traction motors) it was one of the first products to be effectively culled by the jigs being ordered to be scrapped.

If we remember, prior to Bombardier taking over the former AdTranz business, they had no AC traction equipment with a safety case for Railtrack, hence them buying in at that time the only traction package with a safety case, Alstom's Onyx kit. That effectively sealed the fate of eVoyager before it really got going.

Alstom in Preston spent months doing design work to turn the Voyager into what is essentially a baby Pendolino design, using the same transformer package as the Pendolino uses, and the costs, including new jigs, weren't unreasonable, but Bombardier weren't happy about buying in components from Alstom, so they redesigned the entire eVoyager to make use of Bombardier components (from the former ABB and AdTranz plant in Västerås) and by that time, the costs, certification, timescales and ability to make anything happen was all spiralling out of control.

They made much the same dogs dinner of their bid for TransPennine back in 2004 - their initial plan was a Turbostar bodyshell with Voyager running gear, but they then didn't want to use Alstom components, so went for, if memory serves, a conventional Turbostar design with uprated MTU engine and an additional engine for hotel power, allowing a similar power at rail figure as Siemens Class 185 design.

The pantograph issue stung Bombardier too, the initial plan was to run a 25kV bus through the carriages, but it became apparent very quickly that structural issues would result in pretty astronomical costs for modifications and then it moved to running with two pantographs until it was quickly pointed out that spacing was too tight and at 125mph, the trailing pantograph contact would be minimal under anything other than HS1 OLE levels of tension and wire section.

It also became apparent that there were differences with the Cummins QSK19R engine which had been modified for Euro IIIa emissions standards, and any attempt to create longer trains which needed additional engines were going to be hit by the need to use different engines in new build carriages, and then it started to move towards a sub-fleet with the Euro IIIa spec engines but engineering issues were still at play and it quickly was filed in the railway's (rather enormous) 'too difficult' in tray.

Oh, and then there was the political ramifications - Voyager being a steel bodyshell, it needed to be fabricated in Belgium or elsewhere, Derby wasn't any use as it focuses on aluminium bodyshells, so lacked equipment and skills/training.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top